HomeMy WebLinkAbout1_23_2001 - Council MinutesAPPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 13,2001
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
OF A REGULAR MEETING January 23, 2001
The City Council of the City ofOrange, California convened on January 23, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. in
a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California.
4:30 P.M. SESSION
1. OPENING
1.1 INVOCATION
Given by Pastor Phillip Sipes, St. John Lutheran Church
1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Councilmember Alvarez
1.3 ROLL CALL
PRESENT - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz ABSENT -
None 1.4
PRESENTATIONS/ ANNOUNCEMENTS/ INTRODUCTIONS The following
employees were recognized with Employee Service Awards: (C2500.J.4.18)Leslie Barrett -
Police; Cathy Knopf - Finance; Joyce Hansen - Public Works; Patricia Roth - Personnel; Joseph Albers - Fire;
Alan Taylor - Police,Resolution No. 9398, expressing appreciation and commendingCorporal
Jack Nanigian of the Orange Police Department for more than
twenty-five years ofloyal and dedicated service, was continued to February 13, 2001
as Corporal Nanigian was unable to be in attendance.Randy Bosch was presented with Resolution
No.
9400, expressing appreciation and commending him for fourteen years of service
on the Planning Commission.Randy Bosch made the following comments: "Thank
you Mayor and Members of the Council. I particularly appreciate and feel with
great humility the honor of having been able to serve the citizens of Orange
through the work I've had on the Planning Commission. It's a great honor to
do that and it's a responsibility I did not bear lightly,nor do I believe anyone who serves
in public office does. It's hard to do - to put your judgment on the line and your knowledge and
try to make the best decisions and try to make as few errors as possible. I think
we have a great city here. It's a great-hearted city with fabulous citizens in it. We have
great leadership and I'm particularly proud that in all theyears I served on the
Planning Commission that not once did any other official in the City try to influence the outcome
of what my decision might be on an item that was before us. The integrity for which that
speaks is really something with which we are PAGE 1
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
blessed here in the City of Orange. So again, thank you for this recogmtlOn and
particularly though the honor of serving all these years. As it was stated, I'm not going
away. I have a lot to say. I do feel free about that now. I encourage everyone to be
respectful citizens; and although often disagreeing with the process or a particular
outcome, staying in the game - making your thoughts heard in a very respectful way,understandable
and in line with reasonable expectations for your community, for the environment
we have and for all the people of Orange. Together we may stumble a bit,but
together we'll move this city even further along to greatness. Thank you very much."Mayor
Murphy announced the Orange YMCA Annual Indian Princess and Guide 500 Car
Race will be held February 10, 2001, 11:45 a.m. at the Orange Mall. The Longhouse
Chief issued a challenge to Mayor Murphy, Fire Chief Bonacker, and Police Chief
Romero to participate in the kick-off race. The Council accepted the challenge.
The presentation occurred at the 7:00 p.m. session) (ORI800.0.48)
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Juan Pablo Serrano Nieblas, 224 N. Olive, asked Council to forgive his debt to the City
for the publishing of his Candidate Statements in the last two City elections, due to his
current financial condition. The Mayor suggested this matter be brought back at a later
time with a recommendation from the City Attorney.
Mark Burkhardt, Chair of the McPherson Neighborhood Preservation Group, voiced their
disapproval on the opposition of a bike and walking path redirected into their specific
area from the Santiago Creek area. He requested that any decision be put off until after a
February 15th community meeting is held. He also asked about the differences between
the City's plan and County's plan for bike path alignment.
Arlen Craig, 3402 Vine Street, spoke about the insufficient parks and open space in
Orange. (C3500.0)
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are enacted by one motion
approving the recommended action listed on the Agenda. Any member of the City
Council, staff or the public may request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion or separate action. Unless otherwise specified in the request to remove an
item from the Consent Calendar, all items removed shall be considered immediately
following action on the remaining items on the Consent Calendar.
3.1 Declaration of City Clerk, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of City Council
agenda of a regular meeting of January 23, 2001 at Orange Civic Center, Main
Library at 101 N. Center Street, Police facility at 1107 North Batavia, the
Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board, and summarized on Time-
Warner Communications, all of said locations being in the City of Orange and
freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of
said regular
meeting.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agenda Posting and authorized its retention as a
public record in the Office ofthe City Clerk.
3.2 Request Council Confirmation of warrant registers dated January 4 and 11, 2001.
ACTION:Approved.
3.3 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report, period ending December 31, 2000. (C2500.I)
ACTION:Approved.
3.4 Request approval of City Council Minutes, Adjourned Regular Meeting January 2,
2001 and Regular Meeting January 9, 2001.
ACTION:Approved.
3.5 Consideration to waive reading in full of all ordinances on the Agenda.
ACTION:Approved.
AGREEMENTS
3.6 Cooperative Agreement No. 12-422 with the California Department
of Transportation (CaItrans) to reimburse the City for services associated with
the SR-22 Freeway Pavement Rehabilitation Project. (AZIOO.
O AGR-3684)SUMMARY: Caltrans is planning a project to rehabilitate the pavement
on the SR-22 Freeway. This project will require a Traffic Management Plan (
TMP) of which certain components will be implemented by City staff.
This cooperative agreement establishes arrangements for reimbursing the
City for those services.ACTION: Approved Cooperative Agreement No. 12-
422 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and authorized the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute
on behalf of the City.FISCAL IMPACT: Caltrans will reimburse the City for
services associated with the SR-22 Freeway pavement rehabilitation project in the actual amount
up to $28,000.00 3.7 First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement
between the City of Orange and Harris &
Associates. (A2100.0 AGR-3498.1)SUMMARY: Harris & Associates is
presently acting as District Engineer for Community Facilities District 91-
2 (Serrano Heights). This amendment increases
the total
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
ACTION: Approved Agreement between the City and Harris & Associates and
authorized the Mayor and/or City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds were budgeted as part of the cost of issuance for CFD 91-
2.Now, with the sale of CFD bonds complete, finds are available and being held by
the fiscal agent. No City funds will be
used.3.8 Agreement with Waste Management of Orange for contribution to City of
Orange newsletter. (AZI00.0 AGR-
3247.1)SUMMARY: Per franchise agreement between the City of Orange
and Waste Management of Orange for solid waste management services, Waste
Management of Orange is required to produce and distribute a quarterly newsletter to
all residential households. This agreement allows for Waste Management of Orange
to contribute 40,000 annually toward the City's Orange Progress newsletter publication in lieu
of a separate
quarterly newsletter.ACTION: Approved agreement between the City and Waste Management of
Orange and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of
the City.FISCAL IMPACT: This agreement will provide $40,000 on an annual basis
to the Sanitation Fund (Fund 220) for publication and distribution of the City'
s Orange
Progress newsletter.3.9 First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement No. 3276 for
inspection services by WilIdan to include the Plaza Preservation Project. (A2100.0
AGR-3276.1)NOTE: Councilmember Alvarez abstained on this item due to his
owning property at 121 S. Glassell and
60 Plaza Square.SUMMARY: Per Agreement No. 3276, Willdan will provide
inspection servIces as requested by the City and be fully reimbursed on an
actual cost basis.ACTION: Authorized the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to
attest the First Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement No. 3276, increasing the
not to exceed compensation for the existing Willdan contract from $100,000 to $230,
000 to include Construction Management and Inspection Services for the
Plaza PreservationProject.FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted in the Capital
Improvement Program and available in the following account: 500-
7021-485100-
9875 $130,
000
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
APPROPRIATIONS
3.10 Workers Compensation - Claims Compensation Budget Appropriation (11200.0.3.8)SUMMARY:
This request is for an appropriation of $600,000 from Fund 730 (Workers'Compensation)
to Account 730-1412-432100 (Claims Compensation) to
cover unexpected industrial medical
benefits.ACTION: Appropriated $600,000 from the Workers' Compensation Fund No. 730
to Account No. 730-1412-432100 to pay for additional unexpected medical
costs due
to industrial injuries.FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in Fund 730 to
cover the appropriation.3.11 Request to
increase
Fire Prevention Appropriation.Contractual
Service/Plan
Review C2500.H)SUMMARY: The Orange Fire Prevention Division plan review costs
for 2000/2001 were formulated upon planning department projections for new
construction within the city. Due to larger than anticipated numbers of new, remodel
and tenant improvement construction, an additional appropriation is needed to meet the plan review
needs of
the Fire Department.ACTION: Approved an increase of $44,560 to the Fire Prevention Bureau'
s funding for Contractual Services, Account Number 100-3012-427800.
Account will
be increased to 60,000.FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Orange annually collects
over $300,000 for Fire Department plan review and inspections. Last year the
total was $314,627. This expenditure increase will be offset by
a
corresponding increase in revenues.BIDS 3.12 A proposal to approve Plans and Specifications
and authorize advertising for bids for the construction ofWell
No. 26. (C2500.P.3)SUMMARY: Well No. 26 will increase the City's supply
of groundwater and is located at the west end of the City in the northwest portion of
the Block at Orange shopping Center. This project involves drilling the well,
placement of underground
pipes, well development and testing.ACTION: Approved plans and specifications and authorized
advertising for bids for the
construction of Well No. 26.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted and
available in the following account:601-8011-
484101-8118 $
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
3.13 CLAIMS
The City Attorney recommends
Claim(s) for damages:
a. Arthur Adler
b. Michael Caruso
c. Delfina Lopez
d. Amelia Melgoza
that the Orange City Council deny the following
C3200.0)
ACTION: Denied Claim(s) for damages and referred to City Attorney and Adjuster.
CONTRACTS
3.14 Award of Contract - Bid No. 001-07; Project SP-3333; ADA Wheelchair
Access Ramps Various Locations (year 2000-2001). (AZIOO.
O AGR-3682)SUMMARY: This project will provide for construction of
wheelchair access ramps conforming to the requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act
at various locations.ACTION: 1) Awarded Contract - Bid No. 001-07 in the amount of $114,597.
00 to the low bidder, Ranco Corporation, P.O. Box 9007, Brea, CA 92822
and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute on behalf of the City; 2) Approved
a Contract Change Order No.1 in the amount of $27,000.00 to Ranco Corporation for the
additional work at
contract unitprice.FISCAL IMP ACT: Funds are budgeted and available in
the following account:310-9645-483300-1328 $152,000.
00 (Community
Development Block Grant Funds-
ADA Improvements)REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)3.15 Award contract for Bid 001-20 for
the SeismicStrengthening of the Water
Division Pump House(W-596). (AZIOO.O AGR-3683)SUMMARY: The Water Division Pump
House building at 189 S. Water Street has been identified as requiring
a seismic structural retrofit. This
project will strengthen the building to current seismic standards.The Director of Public Works requested
this item be continued as there have been delays in receiving contract information and
they have
not been able
to completely qualifY
the low bidder.MOTION - Slater SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved
to continue
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
RESOLUTIONS
3.16 RESOLUTION NO. 9392 S4000.S.4)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange temporarily closing sections of
Glassell St. and Chapman Ave. immediately abutting the Plaza area of the downtown
business district for approved special events.
ACTION: Approved.
3.17 RESOLUTION NO. 9393 AZI00.0 AGR-
3500)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the
completion of a certain public work and improvement; Bid No. 990-24; S-
I92; IFT Pipeline Engineers; Batavia, Grove, Glassell
Street Sewer
Improvements.ACTION: Approved.3.18 RESOLUTION NO. 9394
AZIOO.O AGR-3592)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange
finally accepting the completion of a certain public work and improvement; Bid
No. 990-45; SP-3290; TruGreen
LandCare; Street
Monuments and Entry Signs.
ACTION: Approved.REMOVED AND HEARD SEPARATELY)3.19 RESOLUTIONNO.
9395 S4000.S.3.1.2)A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Orange rescinding Resolution No. 9248,and adopting a Revised Master Resolution of Permit
Parking
Areas within the City of Orange.The following people spoke in opposition to
removing the
parking permit program on James
Street:Eugene Henderson, 150 S. James Rudy Diaz, 215 S.
James (submitted a letter to
Council)Darlene Winters, 245 S. James Julie Wiech, 190 S. James, spoke in
favor ofremoving the parking permit program.The Director of Public Works reported the parking
permit program was initiated by the City as a mitigation measure in conjunction
with the McPherson sports facility; and because it was initiated by the City, the original filing
fee of $400 was waived. They subsequently received complaints from
residents who wanted the permit program removed from the general area. A petition for removal
of the program on a three-street area failed, and a second petition was circulated
for removal of the permits from James Street only. That petition received 60%
ofthe signatures
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
was heard by the Traffic Commission who recommended removing the restrictions on
James. This has been a neighborhood issue, with the City acting only as a facilitator. He
pointed out that if the program was removed and later reinstalled, it would then be subject
to the filing fee.
Councilmember Coontz expressed concern about removing the restrictions from only one
street in the area; as this would attract all the parking to that street and simply shift the
problem.
Councilmember Slater also expressed concern about removing the parking restrictions
from just one street, as there are also parking impacts from EI Modena High School and
the nearby apartments. He reported on a similar situation in which the parking restriction
was removed from a single street on the 200 block ofNorth Shaffer, which later created a
problem and the residents requested that it be restored.
MOTION - Slater SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to deny
Resolution No. 9395.3.20 RESOLUTION
NO. 9397 A2100.0 AGR-3573)A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the completion of a
certain public work and improvement; Bid No. 990-34; SP-3297; Hubbs & Ferrante,
a Division ofU.A.S., Inc.; Rock Creek Park.
ACTION: Approve.
3.21 RESOLUTION NO. 9398 C2500.4)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation to
Corporal Jack Nanigian of the Orange Police Department and commending him for more
than twenty-five years ofloyal and dedicated
service.ACTION:
Approved.3.22 RESOLUTION NO. 9400 C2500.G.2.5.
2)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange expressing appreciation
and commending Randy Bosch for fourteen years of continuous service on the
Planning
Commission.ACTION:
Approved.PAGE
8
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
3.23 RESOLUTION NO. 9401 S4000.S.4)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange temporarily closing a section of
Collins Avenue between Glassell Street and Batavia Street for a construction project from
7:00 p.m. on Friday, January 26,2001 until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, January 28,2001.
ACTION: Approved.
3.24 RESOLUTION NO. 9402 AZI00.0 AGR-
3560)A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange finally accepting the
completion of a certain public work
improvement.Bid No. 990-41, Santa Fe Depot
Park Improvements
ACTION: Approved.3.25 RESOLUTION NO. 9403S4000.
S.4)A Resolution of the City Council ofthe City of Orange authorizing the
temporary closure of Glassell Street from Almond Ave. to Palm Ave., Chapman Ave. from Grand
St. to Olive Street, Orange St. from Chapman Ave. to Washington Ave., Orange
St. from Chapman Ave. to Maple Ave., Olive St. from Maple Ave. to Almond Ave.,
Maple Ave.from Olive St. to Orange St. and removing on-street parking at
various locations within the area for filming of a major studio movie
in January-
February, 2001.
ACTION: Approved.TRACT MAP 3.26 Request Council approve the Final Map
for Tract No. 16129.SUMMARY: A request by Sun Cal Companies that the City
Council approve the Final Map for Tract No. 16129. This project is the first phase
of the Serrano Heights Development approved by Council as part of Tentative Tract Map
14360 in the easterly portion of the development. All plans have been approved, fees
paid and bonds posted to guarantee improvements. (Continued from December
12, 2000 Council meeting.)ACTION:
Withdrawn from the
Agenda.FISCAL
IMPACT: None.TRAFFIC ISSUES 3.27 Request for the closure of Live Oak Drive at Newport Blvd.
with a cul-de-sac and construction of a wall separating Live OakDr.
from Newport
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
3. CONSENT CALENDAR (continued)
SUMMARY: The residents of Live Oak Drive have requested the construction ofa cul-
de-sac and block wall at the intersection of Live Oak Dr. and Newport Blvd. The
City Traffic Commission has reviewed this request and made certain recommendations to
the City Council as outlined in this
report.ACTION: 1) Approved restricting right turn movements out of Live Oak Drive
onto Newport Blvd. 2) Approved Option 2 for raised curb and gutter and appropriated
signing at a cost of $10,
000.FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this type of work (for Options 1 & 2 only) are provided
in the department's normal operating budget utilizing General Funds in the
100-5032-427100 (Contractual Services) account. The implementation of Option 3
will require additional funds which are not
currently budgeted.3.28 Installation of a protected left-turn signal on Katella Ave.
to provide additional access to the Stadium PromenadeCenter. (S4000.
S.3.3)SUMMARY: The City Traffic Commission recommends the construction
of a signalized left-turn pocket on Katella Avenue between the main entrance
to Stadium
Promenade and Main Street.ACTION: Reviewed the proposed left-turn signal on Katella
Ave. and directed staff to proceed accordingly. See Redevelopment Agenda Item
3.4 for further approvals.FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated $127,000.00 cost of this project
will be paid by the City's Economic Development Department and SyufY
Enterprises in the amounts of 85,000 and $42,000 respectively. The Redevelopment
Agency Board is being requested to increase the appropriation in the amount of $85,
000 to theNorthwest Redevelopment Project
Area - Account No.
934-9821-483100-
9196.MOTION - Coontz SECOND - Slater AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Councilman Alvarez abstained on Item 3.9. Items 3.15 and 3.19
were removed and heard separately. The remaining items on the Consent
Calendar
were approved as recommended.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 4.REPORTS FROM
MAYOR
MURPHY - None.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
5.1 Request from Councilmember Coontz for information, City policies and
communication to the residents regarding the energy crisis. (C2500.D)
Councilmember Coontz reported she placed this item on the Agenda because of the energy crisis
in California and the general effect on the economy. The need for political action at the state
level is obvious. But conservation, money saving issues and emergency alerts are not always
clear to residents and local businesses.
On January 18th, the City Manager issued a seven-point directive to all City departments with
the immediate goal of conservation of electricity. Additionally, he asked departments to look
for long term conservation opportunities. The City is fortunate that three years ago, we
thought ahead during budget workshops and requested an energy audit of City facilities. Budget
monies were added for the retrofit of buildings to be energy efficient. This resulted in a five
percent energy reduction. The new conservation measures, as directed by the City Manger, will
help even more. She wanted to address the information that is needed by residents to conserve
energy and keep personal costs down. For businesses, she asked they be provided with as
much information as possible so they can operate efficiently and stay in business. It is obvious that
the City can not depend on the power utilities to help to any great
degree.Locally, the Chamber of Commerce has tentatively set an "energy awareness and
education"seminar in the Council Chambers on February nnd at 6:30 p.m. which is open to the public.
The Orange County Business Council placed a full page ad in the Orange County Register
entitled,An Energy Crisis Call to Action". Initially they are working with large corporations to
assist them in getting out of their power interruption contracts with Edison. Luckily, Orange did
not get involved in that program, which penalizes participants for using power during
interruption periods. The Orange County Business Council would welcome information on
businesses affected by this program. They can be contacted at 949-476-2242.
Another organization, the California Energy Coalition, is setting up demonstrations in Irvine and
Santa Monica which focus on energy savings for new and housing rehab projects. Although the City
is doing their part at City Hall, information needs to be provided to the community about
ways to conserve energy and be a part of the solution. The Orange Progress, cable television and
the City's website would be great vehicles for this purpose. She also provided websites for
Edison andthe Register - www. sce.com and www.ocregister.com - which have extensive lists of ideas for
the consumer. She asked the Council for additional ideas and requested the City Manger
move ahead in a program which would not be costly to the City but helpful to the
community.Councilmember Alvarez asked about contingency plans in the event ofrolling black outs and
the affect to traffic
signals.The City Manger reported that traffic signals will be affected in a rolling black out, but the
City does have emergency plans that are already in place. The City has emergency
generators,contingency plans and agreements with Southern California Edison that the City will be
notified in advance of any black outs. The City has been very proactive for several years in looking
for additional ways to conserve
energy.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
5. REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS (Continued)
The Council agreed it is critical for everyone to conserve energy, exchange ideas and plan ahead;
and a good opportunity to take personal responsibility for preparedness in case of an emergency.
Robert Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive, reported he has walked by City Hall in the early morning
hours and noticed computer monitors on and also lights on, both inside and out. He also stated
there are incandescent lights on all night at Pitcher Park, which should be changed to more
efficient lights.
6. REPORTS FROM BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS - None.7.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 7.
1 Report from the Director of Public Works on the evaluation of traffic safety related issues
at the intersection of Prospect Street and Maple Avenue. (S4000.S.3)SUMMARY:
At the City Council meeting of December 12,2000, Mayor Murphy directed staff to
evaluate the traffic safety related issues at the intersection of Prospect St. and Maple Ave.,present
their findings and recommendations to the City Traffic Commission, and report back to the
City Council.The
Director of Public Works reported on the history of this intersection and the pedestrian accidents
which have occurred. The Traffic Commission is recommending approval of the installation
of a painted crosswalk at the southerly leg of Prospect and Spring, additional street lighting
on the west side of Prospect, and the installation of "in-road" pedestrian warning
flashers a the crosswalk. The flashers are relatively new technology and are automatically
activated when a pedestrian walks into the roadway. They are not flashing all the time, only
when a pedestrian is present. In order to install these additional improvements, it is further
recommended that $30,000 be appropriated.
Councilmember Alvarez expressed concern about the need to spend $30,000 for pedestrian
warning flashers and suggested the first two recommendations - a painted crosswalk and additional
street lighting - could be adequate safety devices.The Director
of Public Works reported the flashers would allow an earlier warning to drivers upon approaching
the crosswalk, as standard markings do not notifY drivers if a pedestrian is actually present.
The addition of flashers would have a significant benefit and an enhanced level of protection.
The lifespan of this type of apparatus is approximately five years, possibly up to ten years.
Councilmember Coontz
commented on the need for pedestrian safety devices because of the considerable amount
of traffic crossing Prospect, the presence of several schools in the area and the high
speeds along the Collins/Prospect curve. She stated that $30,000 is not much to spend when the
safety of pedestrians is at risk, and suggested that if the warning flashers were not installed, this
issue should be brought back for a status report.PAGE 12
L.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
Mayor Murphy agreed that the pedestrian warning flashers are necessary, as they are visible at a
distance and triggered only when there is activity in the crosswalk.
Council discussed the cost and timing of installing the street lighting and painted crosswalk; and
the feasibility of using Edison light poles given the current energy situation.
The Director of Public Works reported there is a pole available that is suitable for the street light
and could be installed in about 30 days.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to approve
the installation of a painted crosswalk for the southerly leg of the signalized intersection of Prospect
St./Spring St., andthe operational modification of the existing signal to accommodate the new
crosswalk.MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy,
Coontz Moved to approve the installation of
additional street lighting on the west side of Prospect St. at its intersection with Maple Avenue.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Murphy AYES - Mayor
Murphy, Coontz NOES -
Slater, Alvarez Moved
to approve the installation of "
in-road" pedestrian warning
flashers at the crosswalk crossing Prospect St. at its intersection with Maple Avenue;
and transfer funds of $30,000 from Account No. 285-5032-483100-6069 (Prospect St./LaVeta
Ave. Signal) to Account No. 285-5032-483100-6303 (Prospect/Maple Flashers).
MOTION FAILEDCouncilmember Alvarez
stated he
did not want to allocate $30,000 based on the short life span of the hardware that
would be installed. Because of the way the activation is being handled, he did not see a
benefit for it at this time, to spend that kind of taxpayers dollars.Councilmember Slater indicated that
before they spend an additional $30,000 he would prefer to see what the intersection
looks like with the other suggested improvements and maybe reconsider at that time.
He expressed interest in this new system, that it may be of benefit to this intersection and other intersections
as well. He is tempted to support it; however, he would rather see the other
items installed first and then give consideration to it.PAGE 13
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Slater AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to request
a report back in 90 days - 30 days for installation and 60 days for study. If staff determines there is
a need to bring this item back sooner, they should not delay in doing so.7.2 Report from
the Director of Public Works concerning a Grant from Southern California Edison to use
LED's (Light Emitting Diode) for traffic signal indicators.S4000.S.3.3)
NOTE: Afinal vote
on this item occurred at the 7:00 p.m. session.SUMMARY: Southern California Edison
is providing a grant to the City of Orange in the amount of $456,250.
00 to convert some of the City's traffic signal indicators to LEDs to reduce their electricity usage.The
Director of Public
Works reported Southern California Edison approached the City several months ago with a
proposal to fund approximately $456,000 in materials costs to convert red and green traffic signal lamps
from incandescent lamps to LEDs. Although there is a level of uncertainty of whether or
not Edison will actually reimburse the City, as this is not a formal contract, the need to
reduce energy usage is significant and the potential energy cost savings will increase. The City has
also received, through the Governor's Transportation Plan, a lump sum grant of over $900,
000 for street related purposes that includes traffic controls. The City is proposing to take advantage
of the Edison grant, irregardless of the reimbursement, as it would be beneficial in terms
of energy cost savings and reduction in energy use. The City hopes to get full reimbursement, but even
if not reimbursed at all, there would be an annual savings of approximately $100,000, although
some of that would need to be reserved for replacement of these fixtures. There would
be a reduction of approximately 75% in energy consumption for each individual lamp.In
order to meet
the deadline for the grant, they are requesting a sole source purchase. Only one vendor has assured delivery
by mid-March and their prices are within reason.Mayor Murphy wanted
to insure that the technology was readily available, that the City is not putting money into
a proj ect that may change over the years. The overall savings, at least from a cash flow perspective,
winds up being $35,000 to $40,000 per year.The Director of
Public Works reported the technology is advanced from what is generally seen,but the market
should be sufficient enough so there is some assurance these items will continue to be available.
In the worst case scenario, the City will save approximately $40,000 per year.Councilmember Coontz asked
whether we can count on Edison to rebate the City, and if the City has to pick
up the difference if they don't; and asked if this type of lighting is dependent on delivery from Southern
California Edison or if there is a back up plan for the lights.PAGE 14 L-
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued)
The Director of Public Works stated the grant money from the State, which is not currently
budgeted, would go towards street rehab or other activities that are eligible. The money received
from the State would not be lost, it would be committed to another purpose. With regard to the
lights, a battery back up can be installed, for an additional fee, that will provide flashing
operation for up to 6 hours, which would be useful in rolling black outs and safety enhancement.
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Slater AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to authorize
staff to apply for LED Traffic Signal Rebate grant from SCE in the amount of$456,250.
00; appropriate $530,000 from Fund 340 Unappropriated Reserves into Account No.340-5032-483100-
6464 (LED Replacement Rebate Program) to use for the purchase of and
installation ofthe LEDs; and authorize the sole source purchase of the LEDs from Syuchronex in
the amount of $490,468.75.
The recommendation to authorize the award of a contract to Peek/SMI for installation of the
LEDs in an amount not to exceed $39,000.00 will be brought back to Council at a later date.
8. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER - None.9.
LEGAL AFFAIRS 9.
1 Report by the City Attorney concerning resolutions and an ordinance approving a zone
change, general plan amendment, conditional use permit and variance for the development
of a public mini-storage facility, Applicant Neiupointe Enterprises, on
property generally located northeast of the intersection of Yorba and Chapman.
Continued from January 9, 2001 Council meeting.)
The City Attorney reported the actions before the Council go along with the approval of a project
for a public storage facility at the location described above. A the meeting of November 28,
2000, the City Council took preliminary actions to approve the resolutions and the ordinance.
Since that time, one the members of the Council, who was in the majority, has left the Council.
These items are now back to the Council. The question was, if the votes stay the same, i.e. 2-
2,what are the ramifications of that. In addition, the City has received a letter from
counsel representing the Applicant, Nieupointe Enterprises, stating their positions on that particular
issue.The City Attorney requested a continuance from January 9th to have an opportunity to look at
the contentions made by the Applicant's counsel and report back to Council on these
matters.To summarize the contentions of the Applicant, the actions taken on November 28th for the
three resolutions - the General Plan Amendment, the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance - wereall
the actions necessary for those three items to be approved. The Applicant does admit that the PAGE
15
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
City Council is required to approve the Ordinance under the premise that if they do not do so,
then the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan. Under State law the General Plan
designation and zoning are required to be consistent.
He has looked at these issues, and in summarizing both the City's past practice and the law, the
past practice of the City has always been to bring these matters back to the Council for a final
approval, especially when it involves a Conditional Use Permit. Often what happens at these
meetings is the Council makes additional changes to the conditional use permit and trying to
come up with specific language to capture the Council's intent is often difficult. As an example,
at an appellate court hearing that day, there was a challenge to a conditional use permit. A
question arose about the statute of limitations and the City took the position that the formal
action did not occur until the City Council adopted by resolution the conditional use permit. The
City did not make the argument that the month before, when the City Council first heard the
matter, that the conditional use permit had been approved. From a statute oflimitations purpose,
the City did not argue that they failed to meet the statute of limitations because the action was
approved the previous month. It has always been the past practice to bring these matters back.
He also could find no authority that the City Council would have to vote against their convictions
on this project, or mandated by law to vote against their convictions on this project. He could
not imagine that a court would order a member of a legislative body to change an opinion on
what is essentially a legislative act.
He could not make the recommendation that the City Councilmembers change their vote.
Councilmember Alvarez, in reviewing the letter from Nieupointe, concluded that the legal
representatives of Nieupointe were essentially trying to coerce the Council with the threat of a
lawsuit against the City, naming him and Councilman Slater in the letter, to change their vote.
He asked for clarification of why they would be named in a lawsuit.
The City Attorney stated in the original letter, the attempt was to construct a legal analysis of
why the City Council must approve the Ordinance. But in order to do that, a member of the
Council would have to vote against their prior convictions and change their vote, since an
ordinance requires three affirmative votes. He could not come to that conclusion that any law
would require a member of a legislative body to change their vote on a legislative act.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The City Attorney expressed concern that Council not receive any additional comments on the
merits of this project. He asked that comments be restricted only to the additional conditions that
were added and the legal analysis by the Applicant.
Gregory Weiler, of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Counsel for Nieupointe
Enterprises, stated they have reviewed the Resolutions and agree with the terms of the
Resolutions. The position ofNieupointe is that there is a mandatory duty of the City and City
PAGE 16
L
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
Council to approve the General Plan Amendment, the Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit.
The General Plan Amendment is a legislative action that was approved in November. The Zone
Change is also a legislative action, which requires a different procedure. He agrees that these are
legislative actions that normally they can vote any way they want. But the state legislature has
stated that the City of Orange does not have discretion in this regard, that they shall approve
zoning consistent with the General Plan. Even if all the Council voted "No", the City is still
liable and a judge would still order the Council to do what the legislature said.
Mr. Weiler stated they did not want to make demands or threats, but do have to insist upon their
civil rights. Comments have been made by members of the public and Councilmembers as to
their unwillingness to follow what they think are clear mandates of State law. Those statements
were made in the context that this project should be turned down in order to acquire the property
for park purposes. This is viewed as serious and is set forth in their correspondence. Any action
taken by a City Council, in order to depress the value of the property so it can be acquired for
public purposes is improper.
Mr. Weiler asked if there is a mandatory duty, under state law, if the General Plan Amendment
was adopted for the City to adopt consistent zoning and if that duty exists what are the
consequences to the City and City Councilmembers if they fail to perform that mandatory duty.
He asked the City Attorney to provide the Council with analysis with respect to whether the City
or individual Councilmembers can be held liable for civil rights violations in the event they fail
to perform mandatory duty. It is their position that the City could be subject to civil penalties,
attorney fees and actual damages in the event that a mandatory duty is determined to exist and
the City Council failed to perform those duties.
Mr. Weiler stated that sometimes City Councils are constrained by prior Council actions. They
submit that this Council is constrained by prior action. In order to honor their oath of office and
honor and perform their responsibilities to the citizenry, Councilmembers need to do what they
otherwise wouldn't want to do in order to avoid liability and to uphold state statutes and to
defend and honor the U.S. Constitution with respect to civil rights. They respectfully request the
Councilmembers honor their duty and do this under provisions of state law.
With regard to the comments made that the Council is being forced to vote against their
convictions, that is not accurate. There are numerous provisions of federal and state law that
impose mandatory obligations on a City. Violations of those can lead to financial consequences
to the City.
Shirley Grindle, address on file, stated that her name was mentioned in a letter from Nieupointe
as the author ofa letter sent to the owners of the property. The Applicant's letter contended that
her group was asking to meet with the property owners for the purpose of encouraging the
owners to give them a chance, after escrow was terminated, to meet with them. She stated she
has never heard any remark by the Council that the City was interested in buying the property.
She has not talked to any Councilmember nor does she know of any opponent to the project who
has talked to any Councilmember or staff member, or encouraged anyone at the City to acquire
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
this property. To the contrary, her organization made a decision that they did not want the City
to purchase this property. Her organization never asked the City to buy the property and had no
intention of the City buying the property. The purpose of her letter to the property owners was to
get their permission to get on the property to clean it up. They were willing to do this on a
volunteer basis but have not heard from the owners. They did get permission from the Flood
Control District to clean up the District's section of the creek. Another issue are the conditions
of approval that were added to the Resolution. The condition of the 30 feet from the top of slope
of the Creek is not written in accordance with what the Council thought they were approving the
night of the hearing. She also did not remember anything discussed about removing property
within a 90 day notice from that 30 foot trail easement.
Mel Vernon, 1235 Town & Country Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
The City Attorney reminded the Council and the audience that the merits of the project can not
be discussed; and asked the speaker to not continue with his line of discussion.
Councilmember Coontz asked about the added conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. The
City Attorney stated he reviewed the tape of the public hearing meeting and tried to capture the
intent ofthe motion. The added conditions are Conditions 16 through 19 in the Resolution.
Mayor Murphy wanted to insure that the verbiage of the Conditional Use Permit indicates that
the 30 feet that is set aside are usable feet and not within the dimensions of the creek itself. The
intent was to be 30 usable feet all along the creekside making sure that it does not become part of
the right-of-way, part of the issue of over the top and the property
line issue.FOR THE RECORD, Councilmember Alvarez wanted to clarifY his reasons for
denying this project from the last two times it was before the Council. For over two hours they
took public testimony and heard from citizens and homeowners that were directly affected
and those adjacent to the property, and reviewed obviously what they would like to see as a
proposed use,looking at that in terms of what was brought before them from the Applicant. He stated
that he reviewed the tapes and notes of the public hearing meeting. One of the things that
came out quickly was that not one person who is a resident of Orange, and specifically
in this neighborhood, supported this project. In reviewing the tapes of the meeting, he found
there was insufficient evidence presented to him by the Applicant to warrant his approval in
supporting this project. Instead, he found the testimony from the public supported his contention
that this project did not meet the thresholds of sound land use principles used by this City
in approving any zone change, CUP, or anything like this. The adjoining residential property values
would be negatively affected and the quality of life and desirability of this neighborhood
would be negatively affected, as he has
stated before.The environmental issues affecting the health of the Creek, in his opinion, were
not adequately addressed and the historic significance of this site was not adequately addressed. Because
of this,and in reviewing the need for the zone change to C-l, a Pandora's box would
be opened by providing the opportunity for a future property owner to construct something
different as a commercial development in the future, other than the one that was
proposed. This
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
something he could not agree to or put on the property at this point. He felt if they approved the
project, they would be putting the neighborhood under a cloud and force them to defend their
neighborhood at another time in the future, probably when he was not sitting on the Council.
Therefore, the current General Plan designation and the zoning would provide a sufficient
opportunity, in his opinion, for some other type of development on this property. Because he
could not make the findings required by law to approve the project, at this point, he could not
support the project and will stay consistent with his previous votes.
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 9382
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange approving a General Plan Amendment
request to redesignate 8.05 acres of property located north of Chapman Avenue and Chapman
Avenue and Chapman General Hospital, east of Santiago Creek to GC (general commercial)
from LDR (low density residential).
General Plan Amendment No. 3-00, Applicant Nieupointe
Enterprises Resolution No. 9382 formalizes and documents action taken by the City Council on General
Plan Amendment No. 3-00 at a public hearing held on November
28, 2000.MOTION -
Coontz SECOND - Murphy
AYES - Murphy, Coontz NOES -
Slater, Alvarez Moved to
adopt Resolution No. 9382.MOTION FAILED
Mayor Murphy
questioned whether the Council needed to take action on the following Resolutions and
Ordinance, since once the General Plan Amendment has been denied, the remaining items
cease to be germane to the discussion.The City
Attorney recommended the Council take action on all Resolutions and the Ordinance in anticipation of
any concerns or arguments that could arise.RESOLUTION NO.
9383 A Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Orange Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a mini
storage facility on property Zoned C-l upon property located north of Chapman Avenue and
Chapman General Hospital, east of Santiago Creek.Conditional
Use Permit No. 2339-00, Applicant Nieupointe Enterprises
Resolution No. 9383 formalizes and documents action taken by the City Council on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2339-00 at a public hearing held on November 28,
2000.PAGE
19
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
MOTION - Coontz SECOND -
Murphy AYES - Murphy,
Coontz NOES - Slater, Alvarez
Moved to adopt Resolution
No. 9383, with the confirmation and clarification that the condition on the Resolution for
the 30 feet set aside for the trail was based on the perimeter of the property ownership.MOTION FAILED RESOLUTION
NO.
9384 A
Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Orange approving a Variance to allow the perimeter wall to have
a maximum height of eight feet six inches, two feet six inches taller than the six foot maximum permitted
by the Zoning Ordinance upon property located north of Chapman Avenue and Chapman General
Hospital, east of Santiago Creek.Variance No. 2089-00,
Applicant Nieupointe Enterprises Resolution No. 9384
formalizes and documents action taken by the City Council on Variance No. 2089-00
at a public hearing held on November 28, 2000.MOTION - Coontz
SECOND - Murphy AYES -
Murphy, Coontz NOES -
Slater, Alvarez Moved to
adopt Resolution No. 9384.
MOTION FAILED ORDINANCE NO. 1-01 (
FIRST READING)
An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Orange approving the reclassification of property located north of Chapman
Avenue and Chapman General Hospital, and east of Santiago Creek to C-l (Limited
Business) from R-O (Recreation-Open Space) and the reclassification of property located
at the southeast comer of the intersection of Handy Street and Palm Avenue,and west
of Santiago Creek to R-I-6 (Residential, Single-Family, Minimum Lot Size 6,
000 Square Feet) from
R-O.Zone Change 1205, Applicant
Nieupointe Enterprises Ordinance No. 1-01 formalizes and documents action taken by the City Council
on Zone Change 1205-00 at a public hearing held
on November
28,
2000.PAGE20
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
9. LEGAL AFFAIRS (Continued)
MOTION - Murphy SECOND -
Coontz AYES - Murphy,
Coontz NOES - Slater, Alvarez
Moved that Ordinance No.
1-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.MOTION
FAILED 9.
2 ORDINANCE
NO. 2-01 (FIRST READING)A2500. ORD 2-01)An
Ordinance ofthe City Council of the City Of Orange repealing Chapter 5.60 of Title 5 ofthe Orange
Municipal Code pertaining to permitting of security businesses.MOTION -
Slater SECOND - Coontz
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved that Ordinance No.
2-01 be read by title only and same was set for second reading by the preceding vote.10.
NOTICED HEARINGS
10.1 PROPERTY
ACQUISITION AVENUE:BY EMINENT
DOMAIN,
920 W. LA VETA C2500.M.14)
Time set for
a noticed hearing on resolution of necessity to acquire the following varying width strip of land
for the West La V eta Avenue WideningProj ect.920 W. La
Veta Avenue Property Owner:Assessor
Parcel Number:
41-100-07 R.
B. Newcom Enterprises, A California Limited Partnership,David
Newcom; Tria Newcom Cooper and Jack Cooper, Trustees of
T.J. Properties Trust RESOLUTION
NO. 9389 A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange declaring the public interest and necessity
of acquiring certain real property located at 920 West La Veta A venueand authorizing the
acquisition thereof.The
Director of Public Works reported this small strip ofland is required for the West La Veta Avenue
widening project. The EIR for this project was approved by the City Council in 1992 and
was part ofa three street study that included improvements on West Chapman, La Veta and Main.
In order for the Council to acquire this property, they need to make the findings that,PAGE
21
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
10. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued)
I) the public interest and necessity require the acquisition ofthe property for the proposed
project; 2) that the proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3) that the property is
necessary for the proposed project; and 4) that an offer has been made to the owner of record of
the property pursuant to California Government Code.
The Director of Public Works reported the value of the property is not a subject of this hearing,
only declaring the necessity to acquire the property
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
THERE BEING NO SPEAKERS, MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION - AlvarezSECOND -
Mayor MurphyAYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to adopt
Resolution No. 9389.10.2 PROPERTY
ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN, 501 S. MAIN STREET:C2500.M.14)
Time set for
a noticed hearing on resolution of necessity to acquire the following varying width strip of land
five feet being the widest at 501 S. Main Street for the West La Veta Avenue Widening Project.501
S. Main
Street Property Owner Assessor
Parcel Number:
41-090-43 Oly
Orange Commerce/Calwest General Partnership, a Texas General
Partnership DISCUSSION:
The
Director of Public Works reported this small strip ofland is required for the West La Veta Avenue
widening project. The EIR for this project was approved by the City Council in 1992 and
was part ofa three street study that included improvements on West Chapman, La Veta and Main.
In order for the Council to acquire this property, they need to make the findings that, 1)the
public interest and necessity require the acquisition of the property for the proposed project;2)
that the proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with
the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3) that the property is necessary for the proposed
project; and 4) that an offer has been made to the owner ofrecord of the property pursuant
to California Government Code.The
Director of Public Works reported the value of the property is not a subject of this hearing,only
declaring the necessity to acquire the property PAGE
22
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
10. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued)
MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
Patrick Breen, 515 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, representing the owner, submitted a letter to the
Council and stated that the EIR on which this project is premised was completed in 1991 and
based on traffic data from 1987-88. The EIR is outdated and a supplemental EIR should be
done before this project continues. Traffic has changed significantly and they are concerned about
the noise and traffic conditions and the affect it will have on the tenants and the valuation of
their building. He suggested it be continued to give them an opportunity to work further with the
City
staff.Mayor Murphy asked why the owner was just now submitting a letter with these concerns
when the communication began last
July.Mr. Breen stated they have been talking with staff but not successfully; and they were
spurred into more definitive action when the Resolution came out. He also stated they received notice
of the hearing
late.The Director of Public Works reported the notices were sent out in an appropriate manner to
the owners of the property, and initial offers were sent out last July/August. They have also
made attempts to contact the owners by telephone, but the only response they received was after
the notice of the hearing was sent out. With regard to the EIR, it was certified in 1992.
However,the current traffic volumes and noise are about the same today as in 1992. The area has
not experienced a great deal of growth because of the economic slow down; and there has been
no material change to warrant a supplemental
EIR.The City Attorney reported the original notice was sent to an address where they have
delivered items before. The law requires that the property owner receive notice of the hearing within
15 days in advance, and there was attempt made to deliver that notice 20 days in advance.
The certified letter was returned because it was not signed and it was immediately faxed over
on January 12th. The law requires that reasonable notice be given and also an opportunity to
be heard. All requirements have been
met.Councilman Alvarez asked about the setback requirements if this street is widened. The
Director of Public Works reported that whenever a roadway is widened, unless a provision has been
made for development to be set back from the new right-of-way, there will be the
potential for a nonconforming situation. This would create a basis for making a finding
for a variance.The City Attorney explained that if a project no longer complies with
Zoning Code requirements because of eminent domain proceedings, those
requirements are waived.MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED
THE PUBLIC
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
10. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued)
RESOLUTION NO. 9390
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Orange declaring the public interest and
necessity of acquiring certain real property located at 501 South Main Street and authorizing the
acquisition thereof.
MOTION - SlaterSECOND -
Alvarez AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to adopt
Resolution No. 9390.11. RECESS TO
THE MEETING OF THE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Council recessed
at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m.12. RECESS TO
CLOSED SESSION The City Council
recessed after the 7:00 p.m. Session at 8:15 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes:a.
Conference with
Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:Property: Parcel located
at NW comer of Spring and McPherson Negotiating Parties: Union
Pacific Railroad and City of Orange Under Negotiation: Price
and Terms of Payment b. Conference with
Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6:City Negotiator: Personnel
Director, Steven Pham Employee Organization: Executive
Directors and Top Management Employees c. Public Employee
appointment pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. Title: Assistant City Manager.d.
To consider
and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City
Manager, or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of
the matters will not be considered in Closed Session.7:00 p.
m. Session 13. PUBLIC COMMENTS -
None.PAGE 24
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
14.PUBLIC HEARINGS TAPE 5800
14.1 PARK SITE PLAN - SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1601-
99 (NOVEMBER 2000) - PROSPECT STREET COMMUNITY PARK N1200.
0 NEG 1601-99)
Time set for public hearing to consider a site plan for the proposed 15 acre park at the northwest
comer of Spring and Prospect Streets. The site plan consists of 3 lighted soccer fields, 2 lighted
basketball courts, 1 volleyball court, restroom/concession/park staff building, picnic shelters,
trails, tot lot, children's play area, gazebo, parking lot and a 20,000 square foot
gymnasium/community center.
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 1601-99 (November 2000) was prepared to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts related to the establishment of this park. It concludes
that with implementation of recommended mitigation measure, the project will not have a
significant effect on the
environment.The Director of Community and Library Services reported there were two community
meetings held and one public meeting of the Park, Planning & Development Commission to discuss
this park site plan, and there was always a very civil exchange of ideas and meaningful dialog.
He introduced Gabe Garcia, Community Services Manager, who served as the project manager
for this
project.Mr. Garcia reported the City continually provided opportunities for public input in
developing this final site plan. There were two community meetings and a lighting demonstration held
at Handy Park where numerous issues were discussed. A preliminary plan was first
developed addressing issues such as the geographical location of buildings, providing sufficient
parking,creating passive park amenities, the removal of parking and public access from Prospect
Street and the need for a buffer between the residential area to the north and the active amenities.
The final site plan features4.4 acres as a passive park, 6.3 acres as an active park, 3.3 acres
for parking and I acre for the future community center/gymnasium. The next step in the
process includes approval of construction documents and determining an acceptable park name. It
is anticipated that construction will begin this Summer and completed in late Winter,
2001.Councilmember Coontz asked how the lighting issues are being
addressed.Mr. Garcia reported the lighting issues were discussed with the community and a
demonstration held at Handy Park. There will be lighting shields and they will be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
All future lighting projects will include devices that allows them to electronically control
lighting and will be based on actual
usage.MAYOR MURPHY OPENED THE PUBLIC
HEARING Arlen Craig, 3402 E. Vine, commended the staff for the job they have done. He felt this
project should not be separated from the nearby Santiago Creek, and the Creek should be a part of
the
EIR.PAGE
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23, 2001
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Corrine Schreck, 446 N. James, has lived in this area for 31 years. She expressed concern for the
parking and how it will affect the neighborhoods. There are numerous schools in the area which
already impact the neighborhood, and parking should be made a priority. She also asked what
the capacity of the gymnasium will be.
Carter James, 5849 E. Valley Forge, Past President of the Orange Junior Soccer Club, spoke in
support of the park plan and thanked the City Council and staff for their persistence and
education in improving the park situation in Orange.
Rod Martin, 544 N. Turnberry, thanked the staff and the City Council for their efforts in
developing this park. There was always favorable communication between the City and the
community and this park will meet the needs ofthe community. He did not think parking would
be a monumental problem.
Wayne Odekirk, 470 N. Londenderry, spoke in favor of the negative declaration and the site
plan. He commended the architect for his work and asked about the operating budget and the
possibility of adding additional land to the park.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS, MAYOR MURPHY CLOSED THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
Mr. Garcia addressed the following concerns raised during the hearing.
There is only enough current square footage for a gymnasium; they had hoped to have
meeting rooms under the same roof, but the square footage does not allow for that; they
anticipate 80 to 100 people in a gymnasium.
Parking is sufficient for this size gymnasium; current code requires 4 parking stalls per 1,000
square feet; they have allotted 80 spaces for a 20,000 square footage facility.
The operating budget has not been finalized, but can be compared to the maintenance costs
for the McPherson athletic facility; approximately $60,000 is spent annually for that site;
operating costs for the proposed park will be available for the budget process.
The City Attorney responded to the question about additional land. The City Council approved a
purchase agreement for the railroad site adjacent to this site. However a developer is contending
they had exclusive rights to negotiate with the railroad. They hope to resolve this issue within
about three weeks.
Mr. Sid Lindmark Environmental Consultant, 10 Aspen Creek Lane, Laguna Hills, stated the
second environmental document that was done for this site has the full biological resource
analysis in it which addresses all of the issues related to the Creek. There are no rare or
endangered species on this site.
PAGE 26
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mr. Larry Greer, Traffic Consultant, 1518 S. Dallas, Anaheim, stated they reduced the parking
from 340 to 291 because a decision was made to reduce the intensity of the park and the parking
along with it. The 291 spaces provides adequate parking for all uses. There could be a potential
problem if all facilities were used to capacity, but there is a mitigation measure in place to
manage the scheduling so it does not become a problem.
Mayor Murphy pointed out the code requires 285 parking spaces for these uses and the proposal
includes 291. The parking is also geared towards the activity centers with a passive buffer area
around the residential property to the north.
Councilman Alvarez asked about the timing and the completion of the park; and suggested that
all surrounding neighbors be included in discussions regarding the height ofthe buildings.
Councilmember Coontz stated the Council has talked about a community center for years, but
because of the size of this proposed gymnasium building, the Council needs to be careful about
the community assuming this is a large center. It is limited in space, and she didn't want citizens
misunderstanding the use of the building and the types of activities that could occur in the
building. The need for a larger community center needs to be addressed more specifically for the
future.
Councilman Slater commended staff for their efforts in working with the community and
developing a site plan that is widely accepted.
Mayor Murphy introduced Lisa Blanc and Mike Hairston, members of the Park, Planning &
Development Commission. He also commended the Commission and staff for involving the
community along the entire process and hoped that all projects could be done in such a way.
MOTION - MurphySECOND -
Coontz AYES - Slater,
Alvarez, Mayor Murphy, Coontz Moved to approve
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 1601-99 (dated November 2000),finding that
with the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not have a significant effect on
the environment.MOTION - Alvarez
SECOND - Coontz AYES -
Slater, Alvarez, Mayor
Murphy, Coontz Moved to approve the final
site plan for Prospect Street Community Park.PAGE 27
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 23,2001
15. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT - None.16.
ADJOURNMENT MOTION -
Slater SECOND - Alvarez
AYES - Slater, Alvarez,
Mayor Murphy, Coontz The City Council adjourned
at 8:50 p.m.AAi'A~JiCf~CASSANDRA
J. THCART, CMCCITYCLERK1L;~#MAYOR
PAGE 28